^1b^ 
* 
<& 


:  £,    University  of  Illinois 

I  ihrarv  at 


C>  |F        dlFT:     b^*K /    >  Liuicaiyai  tiflr^ 

^gx  Vv- ^  Urbana-Champaign - 

m^W  ACES        JjA<« 

/a    .  B-    -"•    •  /      <^_  .'JU  'SI'TO*  v\          x    /«      ;t,    - 


teg   « 

Cc,< 


,/J  ^ 


r4£' 


UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

^  UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  responsible  for  its 

renewal  or  return  to  the  library  on  or  before  the  due 

date.  The  minimum  fee  for  a  lost  item  is  $125.00, 

$300.00  for  bound  journals. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 

for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 

the  University.  Please  note:  self-stick  notes  may  result 

in  torn  pages  and  lift  some  inks. 

Renew  via  the  Telephone  Center  at  217-333-8400, 

846-262-1510  (toll-free)  or  circlib@uiuc.edu. 

Renew  online  by  choosing  the  My  Account  option  at: 

http://www.library.uiuc.edu/catalog/ 


__ 


&Z 
mF, 

>s® 


' 


— ^  ^V~O£ 

feero' 


^*  ^f 


•-.* 


J 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BULLETIN  No.  m 


MAINTENANCE  RATIONS  FOR  BEEF 
BREEDING  COWS 


BY  HERBERT  W.  MUMFORD 


SUMMARY 

1.  The  development  of  the  range  country  changed  the  center  of  production 
of  feeding  cattle  from  the  corn  belt  to  the  west.     In  view  of  the  present  agri- 
cultural development  of  the  range  renewed  interest  attaches  to  the  breeding  cow 
and  her  offspring  and  methods  for  feeding  them  in  the  corn  belt.  Page  325. 

2.  The  object  of  this  experiment  was  to  compare  feeds  readily  available  on 
Illinois  farms  for  maintaining  beef  breeding  cows  during  the  winter  season. 

Page  326. 

3.  Silage,  shock  corn,  and  corn  stover,  respectively,  proved  to  be  economical 
feeds  for  the  maintenance  of  cows  when  fed  in  connection  with  clover  hay  and 
oat  straw.  Pages  328  and  329. 

4.  The  average  daily  gain  per  cow  in  lot  i  was  1.07  pounds.    The  average 
daily  ration  per  cow  consisted  of  corn   silage,    16.64  pounds ;   clover  hay   3.5 
pounds ;  and  oat  straw,  9.56  pounds.  Pages  329  and  330. 

5.  The  average  daily  gain  per  cow  in  lot  2  was  .758  of  a  pound.    The  aver- 
age daily  ration  per  cow  was  shock  corn,  8.7  pounds  ;  clover  hay,  3.5  pounds ; 
and  oat  straw,  10.83  pounds.  Pages  329  and  330. 

6.  The  average  daily  gain  per  cow  in  lot  3  was  .41  of  a  pound.  The  average 
daily  ration  per  cow  in  this  lot  during  the  time  the  cows  were  confined  to  stover 
and  oat  stray,  was  corn  stover,  21.67  pounds;  oat  straw,  5.15  pounds;   and  when 
clover  hay  was  used,  stover,  10.28  pounds;    clover  hay,  1.56  pounds;    and  oat 
straw,  8.19  pounds.  Pages  329  and  330. 

7.  Under   the    conditions   of   this   experiment,    silage   produced   41    percent 
greater  gain  in  live  weight  than  an  equal  acreage  of  shock  corn.  Page  329. 

8.  The  cows  in  this  test  would  not  eat  as  much  shredded  stover  as  un- 
shredded,  and  clearly  preferred  the  latter.  Page  331. 

9.  The  yield  of  crops  used  in  this  test  was  57.9  bushels  corn  and  two  tons 
stover  per  acre ;   and  for  crops  purchased,  viz.,  clover  hay  and  oat  straw,  yields 
of  1^4  and  one  ton  respectively  were  assumed.  Page  331. 

10.  On  the  above  basis  approximately  one  acre  of  land  is  sufficient  to  pro- 
duce the  crops  necessary  to  support  a  breeding  cow  140  days  in  winter,  and  this 
acreage  should  produce  a  considerable  amount  of  grain  in  addition  to  that  nec- 
essary for  the  maintenance  of  one  cow.       •  Page  332. 

11.  The  product  of  one-third  acre  of  land  is  sufficient  to  maintain  a  cow  140 
days  in  winter,  if  we  regard  the  surplus  <?rain  produced  as  offsetting  an  acreage 
proportionate  to  its  market  value.  Page  333. 


MAINTENANCE  RATIONS  FOR  BEEF  BREEDING  COWS 
BY  HERBERT  W.  MUMFORD,  CHIEF  IN  ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 

INTRODUCTION 

The  question  of  the  economical  maintenance  of  beef  breeding 
cows  has  received  but  little  attention  by  live  stock  investigators. 
The  exact  place  of  the  corn  belt  cattleman  as  a  factor  in  producing 
the  world's  future  supply  of  beef  is  a  matter  of  conjecture  only. 

Formerly  Illinois  farms  were  well  stocked  with  high  grade  beef 
cows  from  which  were  produced  the  feeding  cattle  that  were  subse- 
quently fattened  to  furnish  a  profitable  outlet  for  the  large  acreages 
of  corn  grown.  This  was  when  land  and  corn  were  cheap.  As  land 
became  more  valuable  and  corn  was  used  for  other  purposes  than 
making  meat  it  was  found  that  there  was  but  small  profit,  if  any,  in 
keeping  a  cow  a  year  for  the  beef  calf  she  would  produce.  During 
this  transition  period  extensive  breeding  herds  were  formed  on  the 
western  ranges.  The  breeding  of  feeding  cattle  as  a  common  prac- 
tice on  high  priced  lands  has  passed  at  least  temporarily.  The  supply 
of  feeding  cattle  has  come  more  .and  more  largely  from  localities 
where  land  is  cheaper.  Range-bred  feeding  cattle  are  becoming 
yearly  a  large  factor  in  corn  belt  feed  lots. 

The  passing  of  the  range  and  its  extensive  herds  of  cattle  has 
been  freely  predicted  and  no  doubt  will  eventually  take  place;  that 
vast  acreages  of  range  country  are  being  transformed  into  farms  is 
a  matter  of  common  knowledge.  That  the  southwestern  cattleman 
is  becoming  more  familiar  with  the  value  of  his  available  feeds  for 
fattening  cattle  is  evident,  which  no  doubt  will  result  in  more  feed- 
ing or  finishing  of  cattle  in  that  section  of  the  country.  Notwith- 
standing these  facts,  there  is  more  or  less  uncertainty  surrounding 
the  extent  and  the  nature  of  the  future  cattle  business  on  the  num- 
erous farms  resulting  from  the  subdivision  of  the  extensive  ranges. 

The  question  of  where  the  future  supply  of  feeding  cattle  will 
be  bred  and  reared  is  a  pertinent  one.  Many  predict  that  ultimately 
a  much  larger  proportion  of  cattle  fattened  in  the  corn  belt  will  be 
bred  'there.  It  is  not  our  present  purpose  to  discuss  this  question, 
but  enough  has  been  said  to  suggest  to  the  reader  the  reasons  for  in- 
vestigating the  subject  in  hand,  namely,  that  this  has  been  a  neg- 
lected question  among  investigators,  and  some  conditions  point  to 

325 


326  BULLETIN  No.  111.  [August, 

more  universal  interest  in  this  subject  in  the  future.  The  breeding 
of  beef  cattle  on  high  priced  land  presupposes  the  economical  main- 
tenance of  the  cows  from  which  such  stock  is  bred. 


OBJECT 

The  object  of  this  experiment  was  to  compare  cheap  feeds  read- 
ily available  on  Illinois  farms  for  maintaining  beef  breeding  cows 
during  the  winter  season.  In  the  selection  of  the  feeds  to  be  fed, 
an  effort  was  made  to  use  such  as  are  not  looked  upon  as  cash  crops 
of  the  farm  but  more  in  the  nature  of  by-products  of  low  commercial 
value.  Also,  to  study  the  effect  of  these  various  rations  upon  the 
general  thrift  of  the  cows,  in  order  to  determine  to  what  extent  such 
feeds  may  be  used,  observations  were  made  of  birth  weight  and 
gains  of  offspring  calved  during  the  progress  of  the  test.  The  corn 
plant  in  some  form  was  used  as  the  basal  part  of  the  rations  fed. 

In  this  connection  it  might  be  stated  that  the  author's  interpreta- 
tion of  maintaining  a  pregnant  cow  is  to  have  her  gain  sufficiently 
to  account  for  the  growth  of  the  foetus,  which  at  birth  weighs  fifty  to 
ninety  pounds. 

PLAN  OF  THE  EXPERIMENT 

Thirty  grade  Aberdeen-Angus  cows,  similar  in  size,  conforma- 
tion, and  breeding  were  secured  for  this  experiment.  In  breeding 
they  were  from  one-half  to  three-fourths  Aberdeen-Angus  blood, 
and  in  age  from  three  to  six  years.  The  cows  were  the  result  of  one 
or  two  crosses  of  choice  Aberdeen-Angus  bulls  on  native  Missouri 
cows  which  contained  varying  quantities  of  Short-Horn  blood. 

They  arrived  at  the  Experiment  Station  farm  December  20, 
1904.  These  cows  had  nursed  their  calves  during  the  summer  and 
having  but  recently  weaned  them,  they  were  thin  in  flesh,  yet  thrifty, 
and  by  no  means  emaciated.  Perhaps  a  better  idea  of  their  condi- 
tion may  be  secured  from  a  reference  to  Plate  i  from  a  photograph 
which  was  taken  of  one  of  the  lots  at  the  beginning  of  the  test. 
From  the  time  they  arrived  until  the  experiment  began  all  received 
the  same  feed ;  namely,  corn  stover. 

The  thirty  cows  were  divided  into  three  lots  of  ten  each  a  few 
days  after  their  arrival  at  the  farm.  Great  care  was  exercised  to 
make  the  lots  fully  comparable  in  age,  condition,  conformation,  and 
size,  to  insure  that  whatever  differences  occurred  would  be  directly 
referable  to  the  differences  in  the  rations  fed.  The  cows  in  lot  I, 
received  ear  label  numbers  from  471  to  480  inclusive,  those  in  lot 
2  from  481  to  490  inclusive,  and  those  in  lot  3,  from  491  to  500  in- 


1906.]  RATIONS  FOR  BEEF  BREEDING  Cows.  327 

elusive.  Corn  silage,  shock  corn,  corn  stover,  clover  hay,  and  oat 
straw  were  the  feeds  used.  These  were  charged  to  the  cows  at  the 
following  rates : 

Corn  silage $3.34  per  ton. 

Shock  corn 5.59  per  ton. 

Corn  stover 2.25  per  ton. 

Shredded  stover  2.25  per  ton 

Clover  hay 8.00  per  ton. 

Oat  straw 1.50  per  ton. 

Each  lot  was  fed  a  ration  made  up  of  the  following  feeds : 

Lot  i. — Corn  silage,  clover  hay,  and  oat  straw. 
Lot  2. — Shock  corn,  clover  hay,  and  oat  straw. 
Lot  3. — Corn  stover  and  oat  straw,   (to  March  8,  1905),  corn 
stover,  oat  straw,  and  clover  hay,  (March  8  to  May  16,  1905.) 

In  order  to  determine  whether  or  not  siloing  the  corn  made 
the  corn  plant  more  valuable  for  wintering  these  cows,  the  amount 
of  corn  and  its  accompanying  roughage  fed  in  each  instance  was 
the  same.  This  calculation  was  made  on  the  basis  of  the  amount  of 
corn  in  a  given  amount  of  silage  and  shock  corn  respectively.  The 
silage  was  28.09  percent,  and  the  shock  corn  53.68  percent  ear  corn. 
Oat  straw  was  used  for  bedding  the  cows  and  since  this  roughage 
constituted  a  portion  of  their  feed  some  precaution  was  necessary 
to  prevent  the  cows  consuming  straw  of  which  no  record  could  be 
secured.  This  point  was  guarded  by  keeping  good  fresh  oat  straw 
where  the  cows  could  eat  it  at  will.  The  rejected  portions  only 
were  used  for  bedding. 

The  amount  of  corn  stover  fed  was  regulated  by  carefully  noting 
the  amount  the  cows  would  clean  up  well  without  material  waste. 
The  corn  stover  reserved  for  feeding  lot  3  was  all  used  by  Febru- 
ary 7  and  it  was  necessary  to  substitute  in  its  place  some  shredded 
stover.  The  shredded  stover  available  at  the  time  was  apparently 
too  dry  when  shredded,  and  as  a  consequence  the  cows  did  not  relish 
it  as  well  as  they  did  the  natural  stover.  However,  the  cows  in  lot  3 
were  fed  shredded  stover  and  oat  straw  until  March  8.  By  this 
time  they  would  not  consume  to  exceed  four  or  five  pounds  of 
stover  each  daily.  This  was  not  sufficient  to  maintain  them,  so  in  or- 
der to  prevent  them  from  losing  in  weight  three  pounds  of  clovei 
hay  per  cow  per  day  were  added  to  the  ration.  March  1 5  an  excel- 
lent lot  of  shredded  corn  stover  was  secured.  This  was  liked  better 
by  the  cows  in  lot  3,  but  there  was  no  mistaking  the  fact  that  the 
cows  preferred  the  stover  in  its  natural  rather  than  its  shredded 
form. 

The  quality  of  the  silage,  shock-corn,  and  straw  was  choice; 


328  BULLETIN  No.  111.  [August, 

the  clover  hay,  only  medium.  The  larger  part  of  the  stover  was 
choice,  but  the  shredded  stover  fed  from  February  7  to  March  15 
was  of  poor  quality. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  test  until  January  28,  salt  was  fed 
each  lot  at  regular  intervals  after  which  time  it  was  kept  before 
them  at  all  times  in  order  to  determine  the  relative  amounts  the 
different  lots  would  consume. 

SHELTER  AND  FEED  LOTS 

Each  lot  of  cows  was  provided  with  the  same  sized  feed  lot  and 
open  shed.  The  lots  were  paved  with  brick  except  under  the  sheds 
which  were  open  their  whole  length  to  the  south.  These  sheds 
were  12x36  feet.  The  feeding  was  done  in  racks  or  bunks  outside 
except  the  straw  which  was  fed  in  a  manger  under  the  shed  to  pre- 
vent it  from  getting  wet  and  thus  unfitting  for  bedding  what  was 
not  eaten.  The  sheds  were  bedded  daily  so  that  the  cows  always 
had  a  clean  dry  place  on  which  to  lie.  Each  lot  had  access  to  clean 
water  at  all  times  except  the  night  before  weighing  when  the  water 
was  shut  away  from  them. 

Each  lot  was  fed  twice  daijy,  during  the  winter  months  at  7 
a.  m.  and  4  p.  m.,  but  in  the  spring  earlier  in  the  morning  and  at  5 
p.  m.  The  clover  hay  in  each  instance  was  fed  at  night.  All  other 
feeds  were  divided  equally  between  the  two  feedings.  The  silage- 
fed  cows  were  started  upon  ten  pounds  per  cow  per  day.  This  was 
increased  at  the  rate  of  one  pound  per  cow  every  other  day  until  the 
daily  ration  of  each  cow  reached  twenty  pounds.  The  amounts 
fed  were  varied  from  time  to  time  in  an  effort  to  feed  enough 
and  not  too  much  to  maintain  the  cows. 

The  cows  were  weighed  at  intervals  of  one  week.  They  were 
weighed  before  being  fed  in  the  morning  and  the  water  was  with- 
held for  twelve  hours  previous  to  taking  the  weights.  The  initial 
and  final  weights  were  secured  by  taking  the  average  weights  on 
three  consecutive  days  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  test,  respec- 
tively. 

The  table  shows  that  the  silage-fed  cows  did  much  the  best. 
Since  the  cows  were  weighed  individually  as  well  as  by  groups  it  was 
determined  that,  aside  from  the  cows  which  calved  there  were  three 
cows  in  lot  3  that  actually  lost  in  live  weight, — one  losing  as  much  as 
one  hundred  pounds.  Another  cow  in  this  lot  gained  as  much  as 
one  hundred  thirty-six  pounds.  In  lots  i  and  2  no  cows  lost  in 
weight  except  those  which  calved  before  the  end  of  the  test. 


1906.]  RATIONS  FOR  BEEF  BREEDING  Cows.  329 

WEIGHT  OF  Cows  AT  BEGINNING  AND  END  OF  TEST 

Lot  i,  silage-fed 

Average  weight  of  each  cow  at  the  beginning 860.33  Ib. 

Average  weight  of  each  cow  at  the  end 1010.43  Ib. 

Average  gain  of  each  cow  for  140  days 150.10  Ib. 

Average  daily  gain  of  each  cow  for  140  days 1.07  Ib. 

Lot  2,  shock  corn-fed 

Average  weight  of  each  cow  at  the  beginning 858.50  Ib. 

Average  weight  of  each  cow  at  the  end 964.69  Ib. 

Average  gain  of  each  cow  for  140  days 106.19  Ib. 

Average  daily  gain  of  each  cow  for  140  days 758  Ib. 

Lot  3,  corn  stover-fed 

Average  weight  of  each  cow  at  the  beginning 859.83  Ib. 

Average  weight  of  each  cow  at  the  end 916.36  Ib. 

Average  gain  of  each  cow  for  140  days 57-53  Ib. 

Average  daily  gain  of  each  cow  for  140  days 41  Ib. 

From  these  records  it  will  be  seen  that  the  average  daily  gain 
for  each  cow  in  the  various  lots  is  as  follows : 

Lot  i,  silage-fed 1.070  Ib. 

Lot  2,  shock  corn-fed. . .( 758  Ib. 

Lot  3,  corn  stover-fed 410  Ib. 

As  the  experiment  progressed  even  a  casual  observer  could  see 
that  the  cows  in  lots  i  and  2  were  in  much  better  thrift  and  spirits 
than  those  in  lot  3.  The  staring  coats  of  the  cows  in  lot  3  indicated 
that  they  were  "out  of  condition,"  while  the  hair  of  the  cows  in 
lots  i  and  2  was  as  sleek  and  as  glossy  as  could  be  desired.  There 
was  a  dull  sluggishness  about  the  cows  in  lot  3  that  did  not  exist 
at  all  in  the  other  lots.  As  to  the  consistency  of  the  droppings 
of  the  cows  in  lot  3,  we  quote  the  feeder, — "The  droppings 
from  the  corn-stover  cows  were  very  irregular,  especially  be- 
fore the  clover  was  added,  it  often  being  the  case  that  from  one  cow 
they  would  be  very  dry  and  offensive,  while  that  of  another  cow 
might  be  of  such  a  thin  consistency  that  it  could  almost  be  properly 
designated  as  scours."  This  showed  that  the  feed  which  lot  3  was 
receiving  was  not  ideal  to  keep  the  digestive  tract  in  order.  The 
digestion  of  the  cows  in  lots  i  and  2,  judging  from  the  droppings, 
seemed  to  be  in  excellent  condition  throughout  the  trial. 


330  BULLETIN  No.  111.  [August, 

FEED  CONSUMED  BY  EACH  LOT 

Lot  I,  silage-fed. 
Feed  eaten  daily  per  cow    (average  for  the  whole  time) 

Silage  16.65  Ib. 

Dover  hay 3-5°  Ib. 

Oat  straw  9-56  Ib. 

Lot  2,  shock  corn-fed. 

Feed  eaten  daily  per  cow. 

Shock  corn  .' 870  Ib. 

Clover  hay  3-SO  Ib. 

Oat  straw 10.83  Ib. 

Lot  3,  corn  stover-fed. 
Feed  eaten  daily  per  cow. 

Corn  stover  (first  42  days) 21.67  Ib. 

Corn  stover,  shredded,  (last  98  days) 10.29  Ib. 

Clover  hay  (average  for  140  days) 1.56  Ib. 

Oat  straw 8.19  Ib. 

The  average  amount  of  ear  corn  fed  each  cow  in  lots  I  and  2 
was  654.14  pounds,  or  in  other  words  the  cows  in  lot  i  were  fed 
the  same  amount  of  corn  per  cow  as  were  those  in  lot  2,  the  differ- 
ence being  in  the  method  of  preparation.  The  cows  in  these  two 
lots  also  received  the  same  average  amount  of  clover  hay,  namely, 
3.5  pounds  per  cow  daily.  Since  lots  i  and  2  received  practically  the 
same  amounts  of  corn  and  clover  hay,  they  must  necessarily  have 
consumed  the  products  from  equal  acreages  of  these  feeds  as  it  is 
known  that  the  yield  of  corn  and  hay,  respectively,  was  the  same  in 
each  instance. 

As  elsewhere  stated,  the  cows  in  each  lot  were  permitted  to  con- 
sume as  much  straw  as  they  wished.  It  soon  developed  that  the 
different  lots  of  ,cows  consumed  unequal  amounts  of  straw.  In 
lot  i,  silage-fed,  the  average  amount  of  straw  consumed  daily  was 
9.56  pounds;  in  lot  2,  shock  corn-fed,  10.83  pounds;  and  in  lot  3, 
corn  stover'-fed,  8.19  pounds. 

It  will  be  noted  that  more  oat  straw  was  consumed  by  lot  2  than 
by  lot  i.  This  seems  explainable  from  the  fact  that  there  was  prac- 
tically no  waste  of  any  part  of  the  corn  plant  where  it  was  fed  in 
the  form  of  silage,  while  there  was  considerable  waste  of  stalk 
where  shock  corn  was  fed.  Stated  in  exact  terms,  1290  pounds  of 
the  coarse  stalks  of  the  stover  were  left  uneaten  by  lot  2  while  there 
was  no  waste  of  silage  in  lot  i.  Silage  may  be  fed  liberally  enough 
to  cause  some  waste  but  it  was  not  done  in  this  case.  Lot  2  con- 
sumed 1466  pounds  of  oat  straw  more  than  did  lot  i.  Thus  it  will 


1906.]  RATIONS  FOR  BEEP  BREEDING  Cows.  331 

be  seen  that  the  extra  amount  of  oat  straw  practically  took  the  place 
of  the  wasted  stover.  The  two  lots  therefore  consumed  practically 
the  same  amounts  of  feed.  There  was,  however,  a  very  important 
difference  in  effect,  namely,  that  the  feed  fed  lot  I  produced  in  140 
days  an  average  of  44  pounds  gain  per  cow  more  than  did  the 
feed  fed  lot  2.  This  warrants  the  conclusion  that  the  mere  act  of 
siloing  the  corn  plant  increases  to  a  considerable  extent  its  value  for 
wintering  cows. 

During  the  period  in  which  lot  3  received  only  corn  stover  and  oat 
straw, — the  first  forty-two  days  of  the  experiment,- — the  cows  in  this 
lot  consumed  an  average  of  21.67  pounds  of  corn  stover  and  5.15 
pounds  oat  straw  daily.  Upon  this  ration  the  cows  made  an  aver- 
age daily  gain  of  close  to  .7  of  a  pound  each.  When  the  shredded 
stover  of  poor  quality  was  substituted,  the  cows  ate  less  of  it  and 
more  of  oat  straw.  Notwithstanding  the  latter  however,  it  was 
soon  necessary  to  add  three  pounds  of  clover  hay  to  the  ration  to 
secure  satisfactory  results.  The  total  amount  of  oat  straw  con- 
sumed by  this  lot  was  less  than  that  consumed  by  either  lot  I  or 
lot  2. 

SAI/T 

From  February  18  to  the  end  of  the  test  all  the  cows  were  al- 
lowed free  and  constant  access  to  loose  salt  and  a  record  kept  of  the 
amount  consumed  by  each.  The  average  daily  consumption  of  salt 
per  cow  in  the  various  lots  was  as  follows:  Lot  I,  .08  of  a  pound; 
Lot  2,  .12;  and  Lot  3,  .10. 

COMPARISON  OF  ACREAGES 

In  order  to  make  a  further  comparison  of  the  three  rations  used 
in  this  test,  we  may  calculate  the  number  of  acres  required  to  winter 
cows  by  each  of  the  three  methods  used.  The  exact  acreages  of  sil- 
age, shock  corn,  and  corn  stover  used  were  known.  As  indicated  on 
page  330,  lots  i  and  2  received  equal  acreages  of  corn  in  the  form  of 
silage  and  shock  corn  respectively.  The  corn  crop  yielded  57.86 
bushels  of  corn  and  two  tons  stover  (cured  basis)  per  acre.  Since 
the  other  crops  used  were  purchased  on  the  market  it  is  necessary 
to  assume  the  yield  of  each.  We  may  assume  that  the  yield  of  oat 
straw  was  one  ton  per  acre,  and  that  of  clover  hay  i^  tons,  which 
are  believed  to  be  in  keeping  with  the  yield  of  corn  mentioned  above. 
Expressing  the  average  amounts  of  feed  consumed  per  head 
(page  330)  in  terms  of  the  acreages  required  to  produce  these  feeds, 
we  have  the  following : 


332 


BULLETIN  No.  111. 


[August, 


ACREAGE  CONSUMED  PER  Cow 


Tons  consumed. 

Yield  per 
acre,  tons. 

Acreage 
consumed. 

Lot  1. 

Silage 
Clover  hay 
Oat  straw 

Total  No.  acres 

1.165 
.245 
.669 

8.109 
1.750 
1.000 

.1436 
.1400 
.6692* 

.9528 

Lot  2. 
Shock  corn 
Clover  hay 
Oat  straw 

Total  No.   acres. 

.609 
.245 

.758 

4.327 
1.750 
1.000 

.1407 
.1400 
.7581* 

1.0388 

Lot  3. 
L  Stover 
Clover  hay 
Oat  straw 

Total  No.  acres. 

1.009 
.109 
.573 

2.000 
1.750 
1.000 

.5045* 
.0624 
.5733* 

1.1402 

*The  grain  produced  in  addition  is  not  here  considered. 

The  above  total  acreages,  however,  are  not  a  criterion  of  the  rel- 
ative efficiency  of  the  three  rations,  because  the  areas  which  pro- 
duced the  oat  straw  and  corn  stover  fed  yielded  also  a  certain 
amount  of  grain.  In  order  to  express  the  acreages  of  oat  straw 
in  terms  comparable  with  the  acreages  of  other  crops  used,  we  may 
reduce  the  straw  and  oats  to  their  money  values,  determine  the  per- 
centage which  the  value  of  the  straw  constitutes,  based  on  the  total 
value  of  both  straw  and  oats,  and  regard  this  percentage  as  the 
proportion  of  the  acreage  of  oats  which  is  represented  by  the  straw 
grown  thereon. 

Thus  assuming  a  yield  of  fifty  bushels  per  acre  of  oats,  at  32 
cents  per  bushel,  the  value  of  oats  per  acre  is  $16.00;  value  of  one 
ton  straw,  $1.50  (page  327).  The  straw,  then,  makes  up  8.908  per 
cent  of  the  value  of  the  crop,  and  that  percentage  of  the  acreages  of 
straw  indicated  in  the  above  table  may  be  considered  as  representing 
the  amount  of.  land  actually  chargeable  to  the  straw  which  the  cows 
consumed. 

Similarly,  our  records  show  that  the  corn  crop  yielded  57.86 
bushels  of  grain  and  two  tons  stover  per  acre.  Calculating  the  corn 
at  35c  per  bushel  and  the  stover  at  $2.25  per  ton,  we  find  the  value 
of  corn  to  be  $20.25  and  stover  $4.50  per  acre,  from  which  we  de- 
termine that  1 8. 1 8  percent  of  the  value  of  the  crop  consists  of 
stover.  Computing  the  percentages  of  straw  and  stover  thus  deter- 


1906.]  RATIONS  FOR  BEEF  BREEDING  Cows.  333 

mined,  upon  the  acreages  given  below,  we  have  the  following  com- 
parable results : 

Lot  i.  Acreage  consumed. 

Silage 1436 

Clover  hay  1400 

Oat  straw   0592 


Total    3428* 

Lot  2. 

Shock    corn 1407 

Clover  hay   1400 

Oat  straw  .  .0668 


Total 3475* 

Lot  3. 

Stover 0917 

Clover  hay   0624 

Oat  straw 0505 


Total   ; 2046* 

*For  actual  amount  of  land  involved  see  statement  on  p.  332. 

RECORD  OF  THE  Cows  THAT  CALVED 

Cows  about  to  calve  were  removed  from  their  respective  lots, 
usually  a  few  days  prior  to  calving  and  individual  records  kept 
both  of  the  feed  consumed  and  the  increase  or  decrease  in  weight  of 
cows  and  calves.  As  the  oldest  calf  at  the  end  of  the  test  was  onl> 
seventy  days  old  the  calves  in  no  case  received  any  feed  other  than 
the  milk  of  their  dams.  It  is  true  that  some  of  the  calves  began  to 
pick  at  the  bedding  when  no  more  than  a  week  old  but  what  they 
consumed  was  so  slight  that  this  factor  was  immaterial. 

When  a  cow  was  removed,  her  ration  was  made  up  of  the  same 
kind  of  feeds  to  which  she  had  previously  been  accustomed.  Soon 
after  calving  the  amounts  were  greatly  increased  in  order  to  insure 
a  good  flow  of  milk  for  the  calf  and  not  permit  the  cow  to  run  down 
in  condition  to  any  great  extent. 

The  accompanying  tables  present  the  important  data  concerning 
gains  and  losses  in  weight,  feed  consumed,  and  cost  of  feeds : 


334 


BULLETIN  No.  111. 
WEIGHT,  GAIN,  AND  COST  OF  FEED 


[August, 


No. 
cow. 

Wt.  cow 
after 
birth 

wt. 

cow 
May  16 

Birth 
weight 
calf, 

Wt. 
calf 
May  16, 

Total 
gain 
calf, 

Daily 
gain 
calf 

Length 
test 
days, 

Daily 
cost  of 
feed 

Cost  1 
Ib.  gain 
on 

calf, 

1905, 

Ib. 

Ib. 

Ib. 

Ib. 

or  age 

per  cow, 

calf. 

Ib. 

Ib. 

calf. 

cents. 

cents. 

486 

(lot  2) 

935 

835 

58 

1    170 

112 

1.69 

66 

6.831 

4.044 

487 

(lot  2) 

945 

848 

72 

200 

128 

1.83 

70 

6.843 

3.731 

478 

(lot   1) 

920 

.    893 

66 

191 

125 

1.98 

63 

7.489 

3.789 

471 

(lot  1) 

945 

885 

74 

165 

91 

1.49 

61 

7.630 

5.121 

FEED  EATEN  DAILY  PER  Cow 


No.  cow. 

Corn  silage,  Ib. 

Shock  corn,lb. 

Clover,  Ib. 

Oat  straw,  Ib. 

486  (lot  2) 

17.0 

4.79 

2.23 

487  (lot  2) 

16.9 

4.90 

2.12 

478  (lot  1) 

32.5 

4.83 

1.73 

471  (lot  1) 

32.8 

4.85 

2.83 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  cows  were  fed  much  more 
after  calving  than  before,  they  fell  off  very  materially  in  weight. 
This  loss  of  weight  was  not  as  marked  with  the  cows  in  lot  i,  where 
silage  was  fed  as  it  was  in  lot  2  where  shock-corn  was  fed.  Obvi- 
ously the  data  are  not  available  to  determine  whether  this  difference 
was  due  largely  to  the  difference  in  the  rations  fed  or  whether  it 
was  due  to  the  varying  quantities  of  milk  produced  by  the  individ- 
ual cows  involved.  If  the  amount  left  by  the  calves  for  a  time  after 
calving  be  taken  as  an  indication  of  milking  qualities,  it  would  seem 
that  in  general  the  shock  corn-fed  cows  were  naturally  heavier  milk- 
ers than  the  silage-fed  cows. 

Other  things  being  equal,  it  would  be  expected  that  the  calves 
from  cows  giving  the  largest  flow  of  milk  would  make  the  most 
rapid  gains.  If  so,  and  if  the  shock  corn-fed  cows  gave  more  milk 
than  the  silage- fed  ones,  why  did  the  calf  or  cow  number  478  (sil- 
age-fed) gain  most  and  the  cow  suffer  the  least  loss  in  live  weight? 
In  order  to  determine  this  matter  accurately  it  would  require  that 
the  cows  be  milked  and  a  careful  record  kept  of  the  yield.  Enough 
is  already  known  to  satisfy  the  writer  that  if  the  cows  in  lot  i  (sil- 


1906.}  RATIONS  FOR  BEEP  BREEDING  Cows.  335 

age-fed)  did  not  give  as  much  milk  as  the  cows  in  lot  2  (shock  corn- 
fed)  it  was  because  of  a  non-milking  tendency  in  the  silage-fed  cows 
for  which  the  ration  was  in  no  way  responsible. 

The  feed  of  each  cow,  as  soon  as  she  calved,  was  increased  a 
third  from  what  had  been  found  approximately  a  maintenance 
ration  when  she  was  dry.  This  amount,  however,  was  inadequate 
to  maintain  the  cow  while  suckling  a  calf.  The  amount  was  there- 
fore quite  rapidly  increased  until  the  shock  corn-fed  cows  received 
twenty  pounds  shock  corn  and  five  pounds  clover  hay,  and  the  sil- 
age-fed cows  received  a  daily  allowance  of  thirty-eight  pounds  of 
silage  and  five  pounds  of  clover  hay.  This  amount  seemed  about 
right  to  keep  the  cows  from  shrinking  in  weight  while  nursing  their 
calves  and  was  approximately  twice  the  amount  necessary  to  main- 
tain the  same  cows  while  dry.  It  might  be  added  that  none  of  these 
cows  were  heavy  milkers. 

The  cost  of  feed  for  the  shock  corn-fed  cows  was  not  as  great  at> 
for  the  silage-fed  cows.  Reference  to  the  table  will  show  that  cost 
of  gains  on  calves  was  also  computed.  The  high  priced  gains  on 
the  calf  of  cow  number  471  were  apparently  due  to  the  fact  that 
this  cow  was  a  poor  milker,  apparently  never  giving  milk  enough 
for  the  calf. 

It  has  been  stated  elsewhere  that  there  was  but  little  difference 
in  the  thrift  of  the  cows  in  lots  i  and  2  before  calving.  A  few  days 
after  calving,  however,  it  was  manifest  that  there  was  a  marked 
difference  between  the  cows  wintered  on  silage  and  those  wintered 
on  shock-corn.  The  former  ration  was  clearly  superior. 

The  data  derived  from  this  experiment  are  of  value  also  in  add- 
ing weight  to  the  evidence  which  has  been  accumulating  the  last 
few  years,  that  the  German  maintenance  standard  should  be  revised. 

The  table  shows  that  in  no  case  was  the  amount  of  protein  fed 
as  large  as  the  German  standard  calls  for  to  maintain  a  one  thou- 
sand pound  animal,  but  as  far  as  the  general  appearance  of  the 
cows  in  lots  i  and  2  were  concerned  no  one  would  doubt  that  they 
were  sufficiently  supplied  with  all  the  nutrients.  It  is  again  inter- 
esting to  note  in  this  connection  that,  although  lot  i  received  a 
smaller  ration  per  cow  throughout  the  test,  they  made  larger  aver- 
age daily  gains  than  did  the  animals  in  lot  2.  The  different  results 
which  these  two  rations  produced  can  be  ascribed  only  to  some  in- 
definite property  which  one  contained  that  the  other  did  not;  we 
might  call  this  the  difference  in  palatability  of  the  two  feeds.  The 
silage-fed  lot  received  feed  which  was  more  palatable  than  that 
given  to  lot  2,  which  had  shock  corn. 


336  BULLETIN  No.  111.  [August, 

DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS,  CALORIES,  AND  NUTRITIVE  RATIOS 


Ave. 

Ave. 

Dry  mat- 

Digestible nutrients 
per  1000  lb.,  live  wt. 

Energy 
per 

Nutri- 

weight, 

daily 

ter  per 

1000  lb. 

tive 

cows. 

gain. 

1000  lb., 

Carbo- 

Ether 

live  wt., 

ratio. 

live  wt. 

Pro- 

hy- 

ex- 

calories. 

tein. 

drates. 

tract. 

Lot  1,— 

Silage 

930 

1.07 

16.2 

.567 

7.44 

.27 

16047 

1:14.2 

Lot  2,— 

Shock  corn 

910 

.75 

19.2 

.631 

9.05 

.25 

19354 

1:15.3 

Lot  3,— 

Stover  (42 

days) 

880 

.95 

17.8 

.456 

9.74 

.18 

19716 

1:22.1 

Lot  3,— 

Shredded 

stover  (69 

days) 

895 

.29 

17.8 

.557 

8.54 

.21 

17837 

1:16.2 

Wolff's 

standard. 

1000 

.00 

18.0 

.700 

8.00 

.10 

16000 

1:11.7 

FINANCIAL  STATEMENT 

The  following  statement  forms  an  interesting  study.  The  corn 
involved  in  the  rations  of  the  cows  in  lots  i  and  2  is  figured  at  35c, 
4OC,  45c,  and  5oc  per  bushel.  No  account  is  taken  of  the  labor  in- 
volved in  the  care  of  the  cattle  nor  the  fertilizer  produced. 

LOT  1,  (Silage-fed.) 


Price  of  corn   •  

$    35 

$    40 

$    45 

$    50 

Average  cost  of  keeping  one 
cow  for  140  days  

6  873 

7.263 

7  679 

8.095 

Average  cost  of  keeping  one 
cow  one  month  

1  470 

1  556 

1.646 

1.735 

Average  cost  of  keeping  one 
cow  one  day  

049 

.052 

055 

.058 

LOT  2,  (Shock  corn-fed.) 


Price  of  corn       

$     35 

$  .40 

$  .45 

$  .50 

Average  cost  of  keeping  one 
cow  for  140  davs  

6  504 

6.911 

7.318 

7.725 

Average  cost  of  keeping  one 

1.390 

1.481 

1.568 

1.655 

Average  cost  of  keeping  one 
cow  one  day  

.046 

.049 

.052 

.055 

1906.]  RATIONS  FOR  BEEF  BREEDING  Cows.  337 

As  no  corn  was  fed  in  lot  3,  no  statement  involving  variation  in 
price  of  corn  is  possible.  The  stover,  straw,  and  clover  hay  used 
throughout  the  test  are  figured  at  the  one  price  stated  in  the  early 
pages  of  the  bulletin  without  any  reference  to  the  change  in  price  of 
corn. 

In  lot  3  the  total  average  cost  of  keeping  one  cow  for  140  days 
was  $4.374,  the  average  cost  of  keeping  one  cow  for  one  month  was 
$0.937,  and  the  cost  of  keeping  one  cow  for  one  day  was  $0.031. 

By  referring  to  the  data  given  it  will  be  seen  that  figuring  corn 
at  35  cents  per  bushel,  it  cost  practically  37  cents  more  to  keep  a 
cow  on  silage  for  140  days  than  it  did  to  keep  one  on  shock  corn, 
the  same  supplements  being  used  in  both  instances.  Since  the  silage- 
fed  cows  gained  in  this  140  days  150.10  pounds  to  the  shock  corn- 
fed  cows,  106.19  pounds,  it  strikingly  emphasizes  the  superiority  of 
silage  for  this  purpose. 


1.  It  is  assumed  that  the  maintenance  ration  of  a  pregnant 
breeding  cow  should  be  regarded  as  the  ration  necessary  to  permit 
of  sufficient  gain  in  weight  to  account  for  the  weight  of  the  foetus. 

2.  Breeding  cows  of  the  beef  type  may  be  wintered  without 
grain  provided  they  are  given  all  of  the  corn  stover  and  oat  straw 
they  will  consume  during  the  early  part  and  supplemented  with  a 
small  amount  of  clover  hay  during  the  latter  part  of  the  season. 
While  the  cows  in  lot  3  used  in  this  test  were  so  fed,  and  while 
they  weighed  57.53  pounds  more  per  head  at  the  end  than  at  the 
beginning  of  the  test,  this  metriod  is  not  recommended  because  the 
cows  so  fed  lacked  thrift  at  the  end  of  the  test. 

3.  The  corn  plant  fed  either  in  the  form  of  shock  corn  or  silage 
supplemented  with  a  limited  amount  of  clover  hay  proved  satisfac- 
tory rations  for  wintering  beef  breeding  cows. 

4.  Although  the  rations  fed  the  cows  receiving  silage  were 
smaller  than  those  given  the  ones  receiving  shock  corn,  the  gains 
were  larger. 

5.  Before  calving  the  general  condition  of  the  cows  in  lots  i 
and  2,  the  lots  receiving  silage  and  shock  corn  respectively,  was 
about  the  same;   however,  those  cows  in  lot  I  which  gave  birth  to 
calves  during  the  experiment  showed  more  thrift  than  did  those  of 
lot  2  under  like  conditions. 

6.  The  amounts  of  feed  consumed  in  terms  of  the  acreages  in- 
volved in  producing  these  feeds  were  as  follows:     Lot  i    (silage 
fed),  .9528  acre;    lot  2  (shock  corn),  1.0388  acres;    lot  3   (corn 
stover),  1.1402  acres. 


338  BULLETIN  No.  111.  [August, 

7.  A  comparison  of  the  three  rations  in  terms  of  relative  effi- 
ciency of  the  acreages  involved  by  taking-  into  consideration  the 
money  value  of  the  grain  grown  on  the  acreages  involved  but  not 
fed  the  cows,  is  as  follows:     Lot  I,  (silage),  .3428  acre;    lot  2, 
(shock  corn),  .3475;   lot  3,  (corn  stover),  .2046. 

8.  Figuring  corn  at  35  cents  a  bushel,  clover  hay  $8.00,  shock 
corn  $5.59,  corn  stover  $2.25  and  oat  straw  $1.50  per  ton,  it  cost 
4.9  cents  a  day  per  head,  or  $1.47  a  month  or  $6.873  f°r  :4°  days  to 
maintain  lot  I     (silage  fed)  ;  $.046  a  day  or  $1.390  a  month  or  $6. 504 
for  140  days  to  maintain  lot  2  (shock  corn  fed)  ;   $.031  a  day  or 
$.937  a  month,  or  $4.374  for  140  days  to  maintain  lot  3   (corn 
stover  fed). 

9.  It  cost  37  cents  more  to  winter  a  cow  fed  silage  for  140  days 
than  it  did  one  fed  shock  corn.    However,  the  cows  fed  silage,  lot  i, 
gained  150.10  pounds  while  those  in  lot  2  gained  but  106.19. 

10.  In  this  test  it  took  approximately  twice  as  much  feed  to 
maintain  a  cow  when  suckling  a  calf  as  it  did  during  her  preg- 
nancy. 

11.  The  average  daily  cost  of  keeping  the  cows  that  calved  in 
lot  i  was  7.56  cents  while  the  average  in  lot  2  was  6.84  cents.    Be- 
fore calving  the  average  daily  cost  of  keeping  a  cow  in  these  lots 
was  5.8  cents  and  5.5  cents,  respectively. 

12.  The  data  with  reference  to  the  relative  efficiency  of  rations 
fed  lots  i  and  2  for  the  maintenance  of  cows  and  gains  on  calves 
after  calving,  are  not  based  on  a  sufficient  number  of  animals  to 
eliminate  individuality,  hence  should  not  be  regarded  as  conclusive. 

13.  The  cows  in  lot  i,  (silage-fed)  ate  less  oat  straw  than  did 
either  of  the  other  two  lots  which  may  be  accounted  for  by  the 
fact  that  they  were  eating  the  whole  of  the  corn  plant.    That  is  to 
say  there  was,  practically  no  waste. 

14.  Corn  plant  fed  in  the  form  of  silage  is  more  palatable  than 
if  fed  in  the  form  of  shock  corn,  which  may  be  the  cause  of  its  being 
more  efficient  for  the  maintenance  of  beef  breeding  cows. 

15.  The  amount  of  feed  required  for  maintenance  is  apparently 
less  than  that  given  in  the  German  standards. 

1 6.  The  experimental  data  presented  will  materially  aid  in  a 
study  of  the  practicability  of  raising  calves  and  producing  our  own 
feeding  cattle  in  the  corn  belt. 


1906.] 


RATIONS  FOR  BEEF  BREEDING  Cows. 


339 


340 


BULLETIN  No.  111. 


[August, 


- 


1906.] 


RATIONS  FOR  BEEF  BREEDING  Cows. 


341 


342 


BULLETIN  No.  111. 


[August,  1906 


r\"v        ^o  v   i^mr&^-y.  &? 

xis>-:^_  J3aP\     ^^-^    rva&L^VpO'   >r\_v    - 


